Just the next step. Violence.
How’s it any different than blaming video games for people acting out atrocities?
Well if it was on tv, then surely it applies to something happening in the real world.
I mean those cases play out just like that, right?
I don’t see it as a very strong case against Remington. Like I said before though, it is such a highly emotionally charged case involving the brutal murder of so many innocent children, ANYTHING can happen. Connecticut was not much of an anti gun state before Sandy Hook. It was a Shall Issue state for carry permits for example.
1 Like
“accused of”
I’m sure there must have been a credible basis for this accusation and I’d like to see it? You don’t think this accusation was just pulled out of thin air, do you?
In a lawsuit? Lol.
I’d be surprised if this goes anywhere. Proving that they’re marketing mass-shootings to kids would be a hell of a hurdle.
Marketing to kids? Maybe different.
A judge thought enough of it to let it go forward.
Wait here, I’ll go find you those ads. Don’t go anywhere.
For their marketing strategy. Presumably Remington’s ads suggested that teenagers who were too young to buy a gun, kill their parents and take theirs.
[/sarcasm]
The case is baseless and Remington almost certainly will get the case dismissed, but the intent is to make it cost so much to defend themselves, that they will go bankrupt and have to close shop.
Remington deserves to go bankrupt, not because of this case, but their product quality is crap.
In the last 6 years I practically gave away my 870 Wingmaster as it constantly jammed, my VersaMax bolt galled into the receiver and sent it back for warrantee repair and my two 700’s are under recall for their triggers.
I heard they had to borrow money just to file for Chapter 11.
2 Likes
How is that the case?
Doesn’t matter. It’s illegal for kids to buy guns.
Should it be?
Are there beer ads where they brag that it will make you so drunk that you will kill children on the road?
Me? Good question. Define “kid”.
No. Nor are there gun ads saying anything remotely similar.
The argument is being made that they are, hence the comparison is dumb.
There are car commercials that show them racing around tracks and whipping down back roads. If someone dies in a crash because they were going too fast for the road conditions, they should sue the car companies then. Am I right?
The suit?
Cell phone companies advertise “unlimited texts” everyday.
Only if the ad also touts the car’s ability to mow down humans.
